CASA EX87/25 — Obtaining Experience (Grant of RePL for Medium RPA and RePL Upgrade to Different Category of Small or Medium RPA) Exemption 2025

The instrument rests on a small set of legal and operational concepts that determine its scope and effect. Key concepts are RePL holder, ReOC, the referenced Part 101 provisions (prefix “101.”), excluded RPA, the standard RPA operating conditions in regulation 101.238, and the experience and flight test provisions in regulation 101.295. The instrument defines ReOC and RePL holder for use within the instrument (s 3(1)), and it clarifies that mentions of provisions with the prefix “101.” are references to Part 101 of CASR (s 3(2)). The instrument also cross‑references the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the regulations, and the Part 101 Manual of Standards for interpretation (s 3, Note).

Exemption 1 targets a particular misalignment between a RePL limited to a category of small RPA and the operator’s desire to obtain practical experience on a medium RPA of the same category. The instrument exempts the small‑category RePL holder from committing an offence under subregulation 101.252(2) to the extent that the offence arises because the medium RPA is not an excluded RPA (s 4). The phrase “to the extent that” is important legally: the exemption is not a blanket authorisation to operate medium RPA outside the regulatory framework; it removes criminality only in those factual configurations where the otherwise applicable offence would arise from the non‑excluded status of the aircraft.

Exemption 2 has two limbs. It addresses operations where a RePL holder for one category of small or medium RPA seeks to operate a different category of small or medium RPA without yet holding the RePL for that different category. The exemption applies to the extent the conduct would otherwise be an offence under subregulation 101.252(2) because (a) the medium RPA is not an excluded RPA, and (b) the holder does not hold a RePL for the different category (s 6). The operation must be of the same type of RPA already included in the holder’s RePL (s 7(a)), must be under standard operating conditions (s 7(b)), and must be for the narrowly prescribed training/experience or flight test preparation purposes (s 7(c)-(d)).

Exemption 3 removes the requirement to hold a ReOC under regulation 101.270 in the narrow circumstance where a person would otherwise commit an offence under subregulation 101.270(2) because they do not hold a ReOC authorising an operation that complies with the conditions in sections 4 and 5, or 6 and 7, as applicable (s 8). This is subject to the condition in section 9 that the person must fall within sections 4-7 and comply with those sections’ conditions.

Operationally, the standard RPA operating conditions in regulation 101.238 are incorporated by reference into every operative exemption; the instrument does not modify those operating conditions and assumes their ongoing application. The instrument also relies on the experience and flight test rules in regulation 101.295 to circumscribe permissible training flights. The combined mechanism is an exemption‑based temporary pathway for practical experience and RePL upgrades, with explicit limits on type, conditions of operation, and purpose.

Primary affected parties are holders of remote pilot licences, persons seeking RePL upgrades, and those conducting practical experience flights preparatory to CASA flight tests. The instrument explicitly targets “RePL holder” and “ReOC” statuses (s 3(1)), so its direct legal effect is felt by people who already hold RePLs for a category of small RPA, or for categories of small or medium RPA who wish to operate different categories. Section 4 operates for a RePL holder for a category of small RPA who seeks to operate the same category of medium RPA; section 6 addresses RePL holders who want to operate a different category of small or medium RPA. Section 8 extends relief to persons who would otherwise need to hold a ReOC authorising the operation described in sections 4-7.

CASA as regulator is affected administratively. CASA retains the role of conducting the flight test relevant to grant of the RePL or upgrade under subparagraph 101.295(2)(b)(iii) (ss 5(c) and 7(d)), and CASA’s delegated officers made and will administer the instrument (instrument header and signature). Operational oversight, interpretation and enforcement of the instrument’s conditions will lie with CASA officials exercising enforcement powers established by the CASR and the Civil Aviation Act; the instrument does not itself reallocate those enforcement powers, but it alters the criminality of specified conduct for the instrument’s duration.

Indirectly affected parties include operators, training organisations, and any commercial or third‑party entities that contract RePL holders to perform flights. The instrument narrows the situations in which a RePL holder must hold a ReOC for specific training operations (s 8). Where previously a ReOC might have been required for particular flights, the exemption allows certain training flights to proceed without that certificate, subject to the conditions in ss 5, 7 and 9. Those who contract RePL holders may need to adjust contract terms, risk allocation, indemnities and insurance arrangements to reflect that particular flights are permissible under the exemption only while its conditions are met and only between 1 October 2025 and 30 September 2028 (s 2).

There is also a temporal effect. Persons seeking to rely on these exemptions must do so within the instrument’s operative period (s 2). After 30 September 2028 the exemptions cease to operate and ordinary regulatory constraints in Part 101 will again apply, unless they are extended or replaced. The instrument therefore creates a time‑limited window during which particular practical experience activities may be conducted without some of the normally applicable regulatory approvals.

The instrument removes certain criminal liabilities while simultaneously imposing precise conditions on rights to operate during the exemption period. Rights created. A person holding a RePL for a category of small RPA, or for a small or medium category seeking a different category, gains a conditional right to operate particular RPAs without committing an offence under subregulation 101.252(2) where the only reason the conduct would have been an offence is that the RPA is not an excluded RPA or the pilot lacks the different‑category RePL (ss 4 and 6). A person who would otherwise commit an offence under subregulation 101.270(2) because they do not hold a ReOC receives a narrowly tailored exemption from that requirement (s 8), but only to the extent necessary for operations that comply with the instrument’s conditions.

Duties imposed by the instrument are framed as conditions precedent to relying on the exemptions. For Exemption 1, the duty is to ensure the operation is conducted under the standard RPA operating conditions in regulation 101.238, and is for one or more of the enumerated purposes: satisfying the experience requirement in paragraph 101.295(2)(c), gaining practical experience and competency for the relevant RePL, or preparing to undertake the CASA flight test mentioned in subparagraph 101.295(2)(b)(iii) (s 5). For Exemption 2, the holder must operate a different category that is of the same type of RPA as already included in their RePL (s 7(a)), comply with the standard operating conditions (s 7(b)), and limit the purpose of the operation to meeting the paragraph 101.295(2)(c) experience requirement, gaining competency, or preparing for the CASA flight test (ss 7(c)-(d)).

For Exemption 3, the duty is to ensure that the person seeking relief falls within the operative sections 4-7 and complies with the conditions in those sections (s 9). The instrument therefore places a positive obligation on any person relying on the exemptions to ensure each condition is satisfied; otherwise the exemption does not apply and normal offences and regulatory requirements remain in force.

The instrument does not create new licensing or documentation duties such as record‑keeping, notifications to CASA, or additional approvals; those obligations either already exist elsewhere in Part 101 or are absent. The instrument assumes continued application of existing obligations outside the scope of the exemptions; it operates only to remove criminality in the narrow instances described, so duties and rights under other Part 101 provisions continue in force.

Rights are conditional and time‑limited. The exemption is explicitly limited in temporal scope (s 2) and in extent (s 4 and s 6, “but only to the extent that the holder would otherwise commit an offence because…”). The right to operate without a ReOC is similarly limited to those specific operations and the specified conditions (ss 8-9). Should conditions not be met, ordinary regulatory duties, such as the requirement to hold a ReOC where applicable, re‑apply and breach may attract enforcement action under Part 101 and other relevant provisions.

The instrument itself does not create new penalties; it operates by removing criminality in narrowly defined scenarios. It exempts persons from committing offences under specific Part 101 provisions to the limited extent described (ss 4, 6 and 8). The converse implication is enforcement continues under Part 101 where the instrument does not apply or its conditions are not met.

Because the exemptions are qualified, enforcement risk pivots on factual compliance with the instrument’s conditions. If a RePL holder operates a medium RPA outside the standard RPA operating conditions of regulation 101.238, or for a purpose other than meeting the experience requirement, gaining competency, or preparing for the CASA flight test, the instrument’s exemption will not apply and the operator will be subject to the ordinary offences and penalties in Part 101. The instrument’s wording, repeatedly stating the exemption applies “but only to the extent” the otherwise applicable offence would arise for specified reasons, means courts or enforcement bodies will need to determine whether the facts fall within the exemption’s scope when assessing criminal liability.

Section 8 exempts from compliance with regulation 101.270 only to the extent a person would otherwise commit an offence under subregulation 101.270(2) because they do not hold a ReOC authorising the conduct that complies with sections 4-7. That wording signals that the exemption is a narrow removal of a particular criminal exposure, not a blanket removal of ReOC obligations. If a person does not meet the conditions in sections 4-7, or if their operation goes beyond permitted purposes or operating conditions, they remain exposed to offences under 101.270 and the other enforcement machinery in CASR and the Civil Aviation Act.

The instrument does not address procedural enforcement mechanisms, such as how CASA will monitor or prove the purpose of a flight, or whether CASA will require notification or records showing the operation was for experience‑building. Those matters remain subject to CASA’s existing regulatory and investigatory powers under the Civil Aviation Act and CASR. Because the instrument is time‑limited, there is also an enforcement horizon: any operation occurring after the repeal date (30 September 2028) would not benefit from the exemption and would be treated under ordinary Part 101 rules.

Finally, because the instrument leaves intact other duties under Part 101, enforcement options beyond criminal sanctions remain available for noncompliance, including administrative action that CASA is authorised to take under the Act and regulations. The instrument does not displace CASA’s discretion to exercise enforcement tools where the exemptions are misused or conditions are not met.

The instrument is expressly tied into the architecture of CASR Part 101 and the Civil Aviation Act 1988 through its interpretive note (s 3) and the cross‑references to specific Part 101 provisions. It does not amend Part 101; instead it creates exemptions from specific offences within that Part for a limited period. The instrument therefore operates alongside existing provisions, modifying the practical legal consequence of engaging in certain conduct by removing criminal liability in narrowly defined cases.

Specific cross‑references matter. The instrument exempts from subregulation 101.252(2) in ss 4 and 6, from regulation 101.270 in s 8, and requires operations to comply with the standard RPA operating conditions in regulation 101.238 (ss 5(b), 7(b)). It also ties permissible purposes to the experience requirement in paragraph 101.295(2)(c) and the flight test provision in subparagraph 101.295(2)(b)(iii) (ss 5(c), 5(d), 7(c)-(d)). These references mean that the instrument’s effect depends on the content of those provisions; its exemptions cannot be applied in isolation from them.

The instrument’s interpretive note states that certain terms have the same meaning as in the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the regulations and the Part 101 Manual of Standards (s 3 Note). That linkage means definitions, standards, and operational constraints found elsewhere continue to shape the boundaries of the exemptions. For example, what counts as a “standard RPA operating condition” is determined by regulation 101.238. The experience and flight test requirements in regulation 101.295 are not replicated in the instrument; the instrument requires operations to be for purposes that align with those provisions, so compliance will require reference to them.

The instrument also interacts with licensing requirements. Exemption 3 provides a limited reprieve from the need to hold a ReOC for the conduct specified, but only to the extent the absence of a ReOC would otherwise be an offence under subregulation 101.270(2) for the specified operations (s 8). The result is that persons relying on the instrument will still be subject to all other licensing, operational and safety obligations in CASR and the Civil Aviation Act not expressly exempted.

Finally, the instrument’s temporary nature interacts with regulatory planning and compliance cycles. Organisations and individuals must track the instrument’s commencement and expiry dates (s 2) and assess how changes to Part 101 or related secondary instruments during the instrument’s life might affect the scope of available relief. The instrument does not itself supersede or rewrite other laws; it temporarily changes the legal consequences of specific conduct by exempting it from particular offences.

This instrument as supplied contains no internal amendment history. It is itself the operative instrument CASA EX87/25 and records the making delegate and date of signature in the instrument header (Danny O’Hagan, Section Manager Drafting, Legal, International & Regulatory Affairs Division; signed 25 September 2025). Sections 1 and 2 identify the instrument’s name and duration: it commences on 1 October 2025 and is repealed at the end of 30 September 2028 (ss 1-2). There are no amendments, schedules or transitional provisions recorded within this text.

Because the instrument is made under regulations 11.160 and 11.205 of CASR, any historical interaction with earlier or later exemptions or amendments to Part 101 would be visible only in other instruments or amending regulations, which are not part of this text. The instrument itself does not purport to revoke, vary or replace any earlier CASA exemptions or instruments; it simply sets its own commencement and repeal dates and establishes its scope via the numbered sections. If CASA issues subsequent instruments that extend, replace or modify EX87/25 after 30 September 2028, those would appear as separate instruments with their own amendment histories.

Practically, the instrument’s fixed repeal date creates a predictable lifecycle: the exemption applies only between 1 October 2025 and 30 September 2028. Any change to that lifecycle requires a separate instrument or legislative amendment. This structure implies that stakeholders should treat EX87/25 as a temporary regulatory measure and not a permanent change to the Part 101 licensing regime. The instrument’s Note in section 3 links its terminological framework to other core aviation instruments, meaning that future amendments to Part 101, the Civil Aviation Act or the Part 101 Manual of Standards may affect how the exemptions operate, but any such interaction will depend on subsequent instruments or amendments outside the text provided here.

The supplied instrument contains no litigation history and names no judicial decisions. It is an administrative exemption instrument and does not record or reference any cases, determinations or precedent. There is no indication within this text that any court or tribunal has interpreted or challenged its provisions.

Because the instrument modifies the legal exposure of persons in narrowly defined circumstances, litigation could arise in the future if an enforcement action tested the application of the exemptions. Any such litigation would necessarily turn on the interplay between the factual conduct, the conditions in sections 4-9, and the relevant Part 101 provisions referenced by the instrument (for example 101.238, 101.252, 101.270 and 101.295). The instrument’s repeated phrasing limiting the exemption “to the extent” an otherwise existing offence would arise suggests that the scope of exemption will be a matter of legal fact in enforcement proceedings. However, there are no reported decisions in the instrument itself.

Practitioners should therefore treat the litigation history as currently empty within this instrument and be alert to any future CASA enforcement or court decisions that may address how the instrument is to be interpreted, including evidentiary questions about the intended purpose of operations, the definition of “same type” in category upgrades, and what constitutes compliance with the standard RPA operating conditions of regulation 101.238. Any future litigation would be important for clarifying these interpretive points, but none is reported here.

This instrument contains a number of precise textual constraints and conditional formulations that create potential pitfalls for practitioners and operators seeking to rely on it.

1. Narrow purpose limitation. Each exemption requires the operation to be for very specific purposes: meeting the experience requirement described in paragraph 101.295(2)(c), getting practical experience and competency in the operation for the grant of the relevant RePL or upgrade, or preparing to undertake the CASA flight test referred to in subparagraph 101.295(2)(b)(iii) (ss 5(c), 5(d), 7(c)-(d)). Operations with ancillary commercial, revenue or non‑training objectives are not authorised by the instrument. The instrument does not define evidentiary standards for proving purpose.

2. “To the extent” drafting. Sections 4 and 6 exempt conduct only “to the extent that the holder would otherwise commit an offence because” certain facts apply. That drafting means the exemption may not cover other legal reasons the conduct could be unlawful. Practically, a flight might be non‑exempt because of unrelated regulatory breaches even if it fits the instrument’s narrow factual trigger.

3. Standard RPA operating conditions required. All permitted operations must comply with regulation 101.238. The instrument does not alter or relax the content of those standard operating conditions; any breach of 101.238 will remove the exemption and reintroduce exposure to offences in Part 101 (ss 5(a), 7(b)).

4. Same type requirement for category upgrades. For a RePL upgrade, section 7(a) requires that the different category be of the same type of small RPA or medium RPA as is already included in the holder’s RePL. The instrument’s Note reinforces that a category upgrade is only possible for the same type. This is not a general right to upgrade across different types, and misreading “different category” as encompassing different types may lead to a compliance breach.

5. Temporal boundary. Operations outside the instrument’s effective dates are not covered (s 2). Practitioners must track commencement and expiry dates. There is no transitional or grandfathering clause in the instrument.

6. ReOC relief is limited. Section 8 exempts from regulation 101.270 only to the extent a person would otherwise commit an offence under subregulation 101.270(2) because they do not hold a ReOC authorising the conduct that complies with sections 4-7. It is not a general waiver of ReOC obligations, and it does not authorise operations that would otherwise be unlawful for reasons unrelated to ReOC status.

7. No express supervisory or record‑keeping mechanism. The instrument does not require notification to CASA prior to relying on the exemption, nor does it impose explicit record‑keeping obligations to demonstrate an operation’s purpose. That absence creates evidentiary risk: operators relying on the exemption may need to produce contemporaneous evidence to defend against enforcement, but no statutory mechanism is provided to pre‑clear an operation under the instrument’s terms.

8. Enforcement hinge on factual compliance. Because the instrument is an exemption rather than a licensing pathway, CASA enforcement will likely focus on whether the operation in fact met the conditions. The instrument’s language does not prescribe what evidence will satisfy CASA in an audit or prosecution, leaving uncertainty.

9. Interaction with other Part 101 obligations. The instrument does not displace other regulatory obligations; operators may remain subject to other licensing, operational or safety requirements under Part 101 and the Civil Aviation Act, and a failure to comply with those will not be cured by the exemption.

10. Limited beneficiaries. The instrument benefits only RePL holders or persons seeking RePL upgrades as described; persons without RePLs, or seeking to operate RPAs outside the categories and types described, do not benefit.

These “gotchas” flow directly from the instrument’s text. Close attention to the listed sections and to the referenced Part 101 provisions will be necessary to determine whether a particular flight sits inside or outside the exemption.

To rely on the exemptions in CASA EX87/25, a practitioner or operator should follow a process that maps to the instrument’s conditions and the Part 101 cross‑references. The instrument itself does not prescribe a particular administrative process such as notification, but compliance requires meeting explicit factual and operational thresholds. Below is a practical compliance checklist derived from the instrument’s provisions.

1. Verify licence status and category alignment. Confirm the person is a RePL holder for the category claimed. For Exemption 1, verify the person holds a RePL for a category of small RPA and intends to operate the same category of medium RPA (s 4). For Exemption 2, confirm the person holds a RePL for a category of small or medium RPA and that the “different category” is of the same type as already included in the holder’s RePL (s 7(a)).

2. Confirm the operation’s purpose. The operation must be for one or more of the listed purposes: meeting the experience requirement in paragraph 101.295(2)(c) for the grant of the relevant RePL or upgrade; obtaining practical experience and competency for the grant of the relevant RePL or upgrade; or preparing to undertake the CASA flight test under subparagraph 101.295(2)(b)(iii) (ss 5(c)-(d), 7(c)-(d)). Record contemporaneous documentation of the training objective, curriculum, and connection to regulation 101.295 to substantiate the purpose if questioned.

3. Operate only under regulation 101.238 standard conditions. Ensure the planned operation complies with the standard RPA operating conditions set out in regulation 101.238. The instrument makes compliance with those conditions a precondition of the exemption (ss 5(a), 7(b)). Cross‑check flight profiles, airspace constraints, heights, observers and any other items that 101.238 requires.

4. Check excluded RPA status. For Exemption 1 the exemption applies when the medium RPA is not an excluded RPA and the otherwise applicable offence arises from that fact (s 4). Practically, confirm whether the RPA would otherwise be an excluded RPA under Part 101 and document the reasoning.

5. Assess ReOC requirement and reliance on Exemption 3. If the operation would otherwise require a ReOC authorisation under regulation 101.270, confirm the exemption in section 8 applies , namely, that the person would otherwise commit an offence under subregulation 101.270(2) because they do not hold a ReOC authorising a compliant operation, and that the operation otherwise satisfies sections 4-7 and the conditions in section 9.

6. Maintain contemporaneous evidence. The instrument does not require specific records, but because the exemption turns on purpose and compliance with standard conditions, maintain contemporaneous logs, training plans, observer notes, witness statements, and any communications with CASA or training providers that demonstrate the training nature of the flights and compliance with 101.238 and 101.295 linkage. This evidence will be material if CASA audits or investigates.

7. Limit operational scope and commercial use. Do not use the exemption to authorise flights that have commercial, third‑party revenue or other non‑training objectives outside the instrument’s permitted purposes. The instrument’s scope is narrow and purposive; combining training flights with commercial tasks risks invalidating the exemption.

8. Monitor timing. Only rely on the exemption for operations between 1 October 2025 and 30 September 2028 (s 2). Plan RePL upgrade pathways and flight tests with the instrument’s expiry in mind, and arrange alternatives (for example ReOC applications) if needed after the instrument’s repeal.

9. Prepare for CASA flight tests. If the objective is to prepare for the CASA flight test, coordinate scheduling and ensure that the content of practice flights maps to the flight test elements under subparagraph 101.295(2)(b)(iii), so the connection between practice and test is defensible under the instrument’s text (ss 5(c), 7(d)).

10. Seek clarity from CASA where necessary. The instrument does not prescribe a notification regime or pre‑approval process. If uncertainty exists about whether a proposed operation will be treated as compliant, consider seeking guidance from CASA or a CASA delegate, recognising that the instrument itself does not create a statutory pre‑clearance mechanism.

Following these steps aligns operational practice with the instrument’s textual conditions. Because the instrument is an exemption rather than a licence, self‑evidencing compliance through documentation is a prudent approach to mitigate enforcement and evidentiary risk.